One of the most fundamental questions in climate justice is also one of the most difficult to answer: how can the climate impacts of carbon dioxide emissions generated in one country be made legally sanctionable in another? Those most affected by climate change often lack access to effective remedies, while major emitters remain largely shielded from liability. In recent years, this challenge has been addressed in an increasingly strategic way through climate litigation. Three successive cases, closely connected, illustrate this shift.
This blog post examines the three cases: Lliuya v. RWE, Asmania et al. v. Holcim AG and the Pakistan Climate Cost Case, which together illustrate the emerging use of domestic courts to address transboundary climate loss and damage. Examining these cases reveals the shared foundations of emerging civil climate litigation, structured around three main elements: reliance on attribution science to establish causation, a stronger focus on loss and damage (L&D) claims, and courts increasingly drawing on decisions from other jurisdictions that have already accepted to hear climate cases.
Major emitters can be liable for transboundary harm: Lliuya v. RW
Growing attention has, in recent years, been given to domestic and transnational litigation targeting private corporations as actors capable of being held accountable for their contributions to climate-related harm. 108 corporations account for approximately 52% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. These corporations have not only derived substantial economic benefits from their activities while externalizing the resulting harm, but have done so despite long-standing access to scientific knowledge concerning both the reality of climate change and the role of their business operations in driving its impacts. While climate litigation has expanded significantly in recent years, civil law actions specifically addressing adaptation measures and climate-related loss and damage have until recently remained relatively limited. However, these claims are now occupying an increasingly prominent place within the broader landscape of climate litigation, reflecting a shift toward accountability for the concrete impacts of climate change.
On May 28, 2025, in Lliuya v. RWE, the Hamm Higher Regional Court (OLG Hamm) in Germany dismissed the claim brought against RWE AG, while simultaneously affirming a key legal principle: a major greenhouse gas emitter may, in principle, be held civilly liable for transboundary climate-related harm.
The case originated in 2015, when Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, filed a civil suit before the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Essen. Lliuya argued that RWE should contribute to climate adaptation costs in proportion to its historical share of global emissions. In the appellate judgment, the court expressly states that “a share of 0.38% of all industrial [carbon dioxide] emissions worldwide” is not negligible for purposes of the drop in the ocean argument. According to the Peruvian farmer, climate change had direct and tangible effects on his living conditions. Accelerated glacial melt in the Andes was increasing the volume of Lake Palcacocha, located above his town, thereby heightening the risk of a glacial lake outburst flood capable of damaging his property and threatening the surrounding community. On this basis, Lliuya sought a pro rata contribution from RWE: corresponding to its emissions share, the company would be required to cover 0.38% of the cost of necessary adaptation measures, amounting to roughly €21,000 (claim 4 p.119). The case was supported by the German NGO German Watch.
Lliuya’s claim was grounded in German civil law, primarily Section 1004(1) read in conjunction with Sections 677 and 812 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Section 1004(1) BGB entitles a property owner to seek injunctive relief where there is a risk of continuing or future interference. Read in conjunction with Sections 677 and 812 BGB, these provisions entitle a property owner to require the party responsible for an interference to eliminate the interference or to cease any future interference. German civil law imposes a two-step, first, the claimant must present facts of damages that the court considers plausible and sufficiently substantiated (schlüssig und erheblich) and only if this threshold is met does the case proceed to a full evidentiary phase, which may include witness testimony and court-appointed expert assessments. Although the claim ultimately failed on a core requirement of Section 1004 BGB—i.e., the plaintiff was unable to prove that he had suffered concrete damage or faced a sufficiently imminent risk (p.118)— the court’s reasoning marked a turning point. First, the court affirmed that a company of RWE’s size is subject to an ongoing duty to stay informed of relevant scientific and technological developments of the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions (p.50). Second, the court dismissed the argument that RWE’s contribution to climate change was negligible, and instead concluded that its 0.38% share of global emissions was in fact substantial (p.51). The court also held that although the emission of greenhouse gases is not unlawful per se, regulatory lawfulness does not bar a claim under Section 1004 BGB, which is concerned with the existence of an interference with a protected right rather than with regulatory compliance as such. The Court clarified that the application of Section 1004(1) BGB does not depend on whether the underlying activity is lawful or unlawful, but rather on whether it causes harm (p.65).
Building on the principles recognized in Lliuya v. RWE, subsequent climate justice litigation has continued to develop, further exploring the role of domestic civil liability in addressing climate-related harm.
The following admissibility of the Swiss Climate Justice Case
In Switzerland, Asmania et al. v. Holcim AG represents an important development in climate litigation against private corporations. The Asmania et al. v. Holcim case concerns climate change impacts affecting Pari Island, a small, low-lying island located approximately 40 kilometers off the coast of Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia. Home to around 1,500 residents and rising no more than 1.5 meters above sea level, the island is acutely vulnerable to sea-level rise and related climate change impacts. These include flooding, saltwater intrusion into groundwater, degradation of coastal ecosystems, and damage to essential infrastructure, illustrating the compounded risks faced by small islands. Climate change attribution science, which links anthropogenic climate change and extreme weather events, indicates that climate change has already played a role in the floods of the Pari Island and that ongoing sea-level rise is likely to intensify both the frequency and severity of future flood events.
Asmania, Arif Pujanto, Mustaqfirin, and Edi Mulyono, four residents of Pari Island whose livelihoods are directly affected by climate change, with the support of Swiss Church Aid HEKS/EPER, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the Indonesian environmental organization WALHI, filed a lawsuit against Holcim Ltd. (Holcim), the world’s largest cement manufacturer, seeking accountability for climate-related harm. The Holcim Group operates 266 cement and grinding facilities worldwide and is classified among the “carbon majors” (i.e., the 107 companies identified as having made the largest contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions). According to a climate attribution analysis, Holcim and its predecessor company Lafarge produced approximately 7.26 billion tons of cement between 1950 and 2021, resulting in an estimated 7.15 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions across scopes 1, 2, and 3. The company is headquartered in the city of Zug, Switzerland, where the claim was filed.
The plaintiffs seek to hold Holcim liable for 0.42% of the total costs of the damage, corresponding to the company’s estimated contribution to global industrial greenhouse gas emissions between 1751 and 2021 (¶ 3.1). On the merits, they argue that Holcim’s excessive greenhouse gas emissions violate their personality rights and have caused climate-related harm, through sea-level rise and flooding affecting their island. Their claims are grounded, first, in Swiss tort law, seeking compensation for both financial and non-financial harm, and, second, in the protection of personality rights under Swiss law (Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code), which serves as the legal basis for the requested emission reduction and flood prevention measures, alongside tort liability under Article 41 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (¶ 3).
In December 17, 2025, the Cantonal Court of Zug (Kantonsgericht Zug) declared the claim admissible and agreed to proceed to a substantive examination of the civil action. The Swiss court’s decision is particularly significant in four respects:
(1) The Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to hear civil climate claims, rejecting the argument that climate change constitutes a non-justiciable political question.
(2) The Court further recognized that the plaintiffs have a legitimate personal interest worthy of protection, holding that the existence of a broader public interest in this case does not deprive the victims of their right to seek remedies and rejecting the characterization of the claim as an actio popularis (¶ 5.5.6).
(3) The Court also affirmed that the civil liability of a single major emitter may be engaged even where it is not solely responsible for the climate harm. According to the Court, claimants are free to choose which carbon major to sue and the existence of other contributors cannot be invoked to limit the defendant’s liability. In this regard, the Court noted that “there is no legal obligation to sue all jointly liable parties” and that third-party liability does not mitigate the defendant’s own responsibility (¶¶ 5.7.1 & 5.9).
(4) The Court held that the remedies sought are sufficiently concrete to be justiciable under civil law. Relying on the Holcim’s own public reporting, the Court found that requiring a corporation to adopt group-wide emissions reduction targets, including for its subsidiaries, constitutes a legitimate form of relief and does not transform the dispute into a political question, emphasizing that the case “constitutes a justiciable civil law matter. Contrary to the defendant’s position, this does not undermine the principle of separation of powers. Every person has the right to adjudication by a judicial authority in legal disputes.” (¶¶ 3.6.4/3.7).
Holcim has announced its intention to appeal the decision, the Higher Cantonal Court (Obergericht) of Zug will then review the admissibility of the claim and determine if the Cantonal Court of Zug can examine the case on its merits.
Now Seeking Reparations for Climate Damage Already Incurred in Pakistan, The Pakistan Climate Cost Case
In Pakistan, the July–August monsoon typically brings intense rainfall, but the 2022 monsoon reached record levels, exceeding 190% of seasonal averages. Scientific studies have established that anthropogenic climate change has increased both the frequency and intensity of such events, notably through the accelerated melting of glaciers, which further amplified extreme precipitation. The human and material toll of the 2022 floods in Pakistan was severe: approximately 1,700 people lost their lives, 33 million were displaced, and economic losses exceeded $30 billion.
In the aftermath of the 2022 floods, thirty-nine farmers from Pakistan’s Sindh province suffered direct material and economic losses. On this basis, they initiated legal proceedings in Germany against RWE AG and Heidelberg Materials. The case is supported by German NGOs ECCHR and medico international. After a formal notice (letter of claim) was sent in October 2025, the case was filed in the District Court of Heidelberg on December 22, 2025. It is currently pending before the Heidelberg Regional Court.
The plaintiffs seek partial and proportional compensation for climate-related damage that occurred after the extreme rainfall of 2022, directly affecting the farmers’ land, crops, and means of subsistence. A notable element of continuity between this case and Lliuya v. RWE lies in the legal representation: the claimants are represented by the same German lawyer, Roda Verheyen, suggesting a close alignment of legal strategies and a deliberate effort to build upon the jurisprudential foundations laid by the earlier case.
The legal basis of the Pakistan Climate Cost Case is not identical to those relied upon in Lliuya v. RWE. The Pakistan Climate Cost Case claim is based on two distinct legal grounds: § 906(2) Civil Code (BGB), which allows for compensation where significant and unavoidable interferences (the industrial emissions) with property must be tolerated, even in the absence of fault. And § 823(1) BGB, which establishes liability in tort, which requires proof of a wrongful act (The claim seeks partial compensation of the total amount of the damage estimated at €1 million).
According to the acting lawyer, Roda Verheyen, the alleged wrongfulness is not based on greenhouse gas emissions as such, but rather on the corporate business decisions of the defendants in light of their knowledge of the climate risks associated with those activities. The Pakistan case is grounded in climate damage that has already occurred, thereby addressing the key evidentiary weakness that led to the dismissal of the Lliuya v. RWE case. The case invites German courts to move beyond recognizing liability “in principle” and toward adjudicating compensation for concrete climate loss and damage, relying on both fault-based tort liability and compensation mechanisms that do not require proof of fault.
Studying these three cases highlights both their shared foundations and their points of innovation, which are worth summarizing.
The Role of Attribution Science
Causation and science attribution is a central element under each case. Lliuya v. RWE is the first example of mobilizing attribution science to link RWE’s historical share of global greenhouse gas emissions to a specific climate risk. The Pakistan claim relies on an extensive body of scientific evidence, including climate attribution science, to argue that the 2022 flooding in Pakistan would not have occurred in the absence of anthropogenic climate change. The Asmania et al. v. Holcim case explicitly mobilizes climate attribution science by relying on Richard Heede’s emissions analysis.
Loss and Damage (L&D) and Fault based tort liability
These cases reflect the growing use of climate justice litigation to allocate responsibility for loss and damage (L&D). Lliuya v. RWE, Asmania et al. v. Holcim, and the Pakistan Climate Cost Case are grounded in the same logic: vulnerable plaintiffs seek monetary compensation for climate harm from major emitters. The admissibility of the claim in Lliuya v. RWE is itself a key contribution, as it confirms that such claims are, in principle, justiciable. Although no court has yet recognized a successful L&D-based compensation claim, some of these cases remain pending and may lay important foundations for future liability-based climate litigation.
The Pakistan Climate Cost Case builds on this approach by linking climate harm to wrongful conduct. In this case, the alleged wrongfulness relies on the corporate business decisions of the defendants in light of their knowledge of the climate risks associated with those activities.
A New Line of Civil Climate Litigation against Major EU Emitters: Cases Building on One Another
Climate justice litigation increasingly evolves and consolidates through a succession of cases that build on one another. In the Swiss case, the Court situated its reasoning within a broader transnational judicial context. Responding to the argument that other courts have refrained from adjudicating climate claims, the Cantonal Court of Zug observed that “foreign courts have generally regarded climate lawsuits as admissible and examined them on the merits. The defendant therefore cannot derive any advantage from foreign case law.” (¶ 3.9.3.).
A new line of civil litigation is emerging against major European emitters. Another example is the action brought in the United Kingdom by survivors of Super Typhoon Odette (Rai) against Shell plc, on behalf of affected Filipino communities. The claim seeks compensation for deaths, personal injuries, and property damage caused by the typhoon, alleging that the company’s historic greenhouse gas emissions materially contributed to the disaster. Like the Pakistan Climate Cost Case, this action concerns harm that has already occurred. The case also relies on recent climate attribution research demonstrating that human-induced climate change more than doubled the likelihood of Typhoon Rai.
As attribution science continues to mature and courts become more receptive to proportional causation arguments, such cases may shape the next phase of climate litigation, in which major emitters are increasingly called upon to account for the tangible costs of climate change.